One Year Anniversary
Today marks Rightank’s one year anniversary!
Definitely, my more memorable posts this past year revolved around same-sex marriage. Particularly, the debate on same-sex marriage between Rightank and The Baltimore Group I found intellectually stimulating, fun, and collegial. Also, comments by Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review and Professor Dale Carpenter (including the subsequent back-and-forth) regarding different aspects of the same-sex marriage debate were highlights as well.
Rightank also tackled the Roberts nomination, illegal immigration, the ACLU, religious freedom, and the War on Terror. Recently, I began reviewing books after I finish reading them. I hope my readers find the reviews meritorious and worthwhile.
My theme has changed quite a bit. My theme schizophrenia occured because of my switch from Blogger to WordPress, and trying to find a theme compatible with what I wanted. I hope to stick with the current theme for a long time.
Blogging this past year at Rightank has been a great experience. WordPress is a great blogging platform and I am excited about what the future holds. Robust political debate is the primary reason why the Founders inserted “freedom of speech” in the First Amendment. The blogosphere channels political debate throughout our country and the world. It is an honor to be part of that debate. I hope you’ll join me for the ride in Rightank’s second year.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Congrats on the anniversary.
I spent some time replying to Carpenter also, on Volokh. Its clear though that he was ill prepared to depart from his script. On the procreative issue, he said he couldn’t see any difference between an infertile couple who could’t procreate and a same-sex couple who couldn’t procreate. And because he couldn’t see it, they should be equally treated.
Well I for one provided a difference. An infertile couple is handicapped, a same-sex couple isn’t even trying (biologically speaking). That and all the others pointing out a number of other flaws in his reasoning made him abandon that thread altogether. I notice that he didn’t even attempt to reply to your point. In his daily reply he simply stated it wasn’t important to the case anyway, upon the recomendation of other s-s”m” advocates who considered his attempt a verbal train-wreck.
There were other examples, but it was clear he was out-paced by the marriage defenders. All that was left was a number of yes-men to start proclaiming their emperor had clothes completely ignoring the discussion at hand.
I’ve linked to your site from mine a few times because I really like your commentary. I hope you keep it up through the next year.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Thanks.
Yeah, Carpenter’s position aligns with many of those who advocate for same-sex marriage: individual interests of marriage justify state approbation and support rather than the interests of the state in sustaining marriage. Ironically, as you suggest, many SSM advocates rely on procreative genetic probability (infertility) in order to justify their procreative genetic impossibility (a child cannot be created from the union of two females or two males). I wish Carpenter would have responded to my last comment as well, as a response in defense of his position would have been difficult.
The debate over SSM will continue to escalate in 2006 as more courts (state and federal) are given the opportunity to play legislator. Rightank, I hope, will be at the forefront of the SSM dialogue.
I’m glad you enjoy my site. Keep up the good work at Opine Editorials.